How does Julie Green address skepticism from other religious figures?

1. A prophet under fire: organized religious rejection

Established religious critics frame Green’s ministry as doctrinally dangerous and publicly declare her a false prophet. An explicitly critical take calls for believers to “declare her a false prophet” and to warn those who follow her to reconsider, presenting that stance as a necessary religious response rooted in Scripture ^[3]. That response indicates institutional alarm rather than mere disagreement over political opinion.

2. Political prophecy fuels the backlash

Green’s most controversial claims tie directly to partisan politics — including assertions about national leadership and alleged conspiracies — which amplify skepticism among both clergy and lay observers. Reporting documents claims that she said President Biden is dead and that his public persona is a body double, and notes her appearance at a political rally, facts that intertwine prophetic claims with partisan activism and draw sharper scrutiny ^[1].

3. Social media shapes and magnifies doubt

Online reactions have been brisk and often derisive. Coverage of one prophecy about an “overthrow” of the U.S. government highlights social-media responses that question the prophetic priorities — for example, users asking rhetorically why divine messages focus on political power rather than humanitarian needs — signaling a broader public instinct to treat such dramatic political prophecies with skepticism ^[2].

4. Accusations range from theological error to sensationalism

Critics adopt two threads when challenging Green: theological condemnation and factual disbelief. Some religious writers emphasize scriptural tests of prophecy and conclude her messages fail those tests, urging formal repudiation ^[3]. Secular and journalistic outlets emphasize factual implausibility and sensational claims — such as the Biden body-double allegation — framing her as a purveyor of questionable conspiracies ^[1].

5. Her response strategy: not found in current reporting

Available sources do not mention specific ways Julie Green directly addresses or rebuts this religious skepticism. The reporting details critics’ statements and public reaction but does not record Green’s formal replies to clerical denunciations or to the social-media critiques ^{[3] [1] [2]}.

6. Why religious critics and secular reporters converge

Religious authorities and mainstream journalists converge in skepticism because Green’s prophetic claims combine doctrinally testable religious content with empirically contestable political assertions. Coverage underscores both dimensions: theological calls to declare false prophecy ^[3] and journalistic cataloguing of extraordinary political claims ^[1], creating a dual-front challenge to her credibility.

7. Limits of available reporting and what’s missing

Current articles document the criticisms and list prominent, controversial claims, but they do not provide a comprehensive record of internal denominational processes, interviews with clergy who support her, or Green’s detailed defenses ^{[3] [1] [2]}. For a fuller picture, reporting would need on-the-record responses from Green and from a broader cross-section of religious leaders.

8. Implicit agendas and how they shape the debate

Sources carry implicit agendas: a religiously conservative site frames its denunciation in doctrinal terms and seeks to protect its flock ^[3]; popular media pieces highlight sensational political claims and contextualize Green within partisan movements, which underscores political alarm about religious-political crossover ^[1]. Readers should weigh that framing when evaluating the intensity and tone of the skepticism.

If you want, I can search for any statements from Julie Green responding to these criticisms or for interviews with religious leaders who defend her.